After 3 days of hearing nothing but ulterior motives surrounding why she won Kentucky, now her quoting of history is a veiled death wish?

As I've said in another post, if she were wishing a repeat of 1968, then SHE is Kennedy.  Why would she be out to get HERSELF?

All I'll say is Hillary is being treated unfairly here.

Amazingly, this super-important faux scandal never came up.

I have a low tolerance for people who don't understand that the mind is not meant to be an empty vessel to be filled by someone else's words and ideas, but can be used for independent analysis and thought - producing actual opinions, not echoes.

People bemoan the inability of younger people to do more than regurgitate the information that gets crammed into their brains by the NCLB folks, but is it any wonder, when many of their parents would rather take Keith Olbermann's or Chris Matthews', or Tim Russert's word for what is going on in the world than take even a moment to see whether they have an opinion of their own?

We have seen too much of this.  It has been the story the whole primary.  I am sick of it.

There is already a backlash to media being in the tank for BO, a blacklash against the treatment that Hillary has gotten.  I am talking not blogs, but voters.  Read the stories. Women are angy. Her working class (non AA) supporters are as angry as can be.

I am sorry, you'd have to be an idiot to think she was talking about Obama being assassinated.

..the minute I heard this flap.  I saw the clip with Wolf Blitzer trying to treat HRC's comment like it was actual news and all I could think was - this is going to back fire.  HRC (and women in general) have taken a lot of crap this campaign season, but even so, by nature, women are healers and they may very well have realigned with Obama if he won the nomination.  But there's a line past which we cannot cross without completely sacrificing our honor and self-respect and this may very well be that line.  

That any of these people can talk any sense at all at this point is astounding.  That they occasionally mangle their own meaning, particularly when trying to make points that can be taken the wrong way is, given their exhaustion, entirely unsurprising.

The point is that those two primaries lasted until June. Anyone living through those elections will always associate primaries and June with Clinton and Kennedy. So, if she hadn't spoke of the assassination, she'd probably get even more strife for inferring it.

It will be intriquing to watch which media outlet focuses on this all weekend.

I think it is clear I overreacted and I think this statement from the persons in the room is definitive:

The Argus Leader's Executive Editor Randell Beck issued the following statement today:

"The context of the question and answer with Sen. Clinton was whether her continued candidacy jeopardized party unity this close to the Democratic convention. Her reference to Mr. Kennedy's assassination appeared to focus on the timeline of his primary candidacy and not the assassination itself."

While Keith Olbermann's incredible stupidity makes me ashamed that I was even a part of anything that fed the craziness, I can not undo what I wrote. At the time, it was my honest reaction.

1.  Why would major site owners in the progressive blogosphere allow their blogs to overflow with absolute lunacy toward Hillary Clinton?  Why would they actually fuel it?  One strategy of the Obama campaign may well be to make the superdelegates fearful of Obama not getting the nomination.  The threats to protest the campaign, along with months of outraged and crazy behavior would help make SDs believe that if they back Clinton and she wins the nom, the sky will fall.  So perhaps these site owners want to help show just how angry and explosive his supporters are.  The media stokes that fury and they both feed on each other.  Meanwhile the SDs say, "holy s**t".

2.  The media (working with the Republican smear machine) may be playing the progressive blogosphere, fueling the Clinton Derangement Syndrome that has shown itself to be widespread there for years now.  By encouraging and stoking the outrage and craziness, and perhaps providing more than a few provocateur trolls to help, they help the blogosphere discredit itself.  There are thousands of examples of unhinged behavior for them to cite and use to destroy their credibility if they become a problem to John McCain's campaign.  No reasonable person would listen to the accusations against McCain coming from the left blogosphere, no matter how true they might be, after they see how the left blogs engaged in the character assassination of Hillary Clinton, often using manufactured smears.  McCain can disarm a potential problematic enemy during the GE campaign this way.
   

And he's so determined to incite Hillary-hate that he can't see his own knee-jerk response today conflicts with his assertion that he's the nominee.

The "noble" nominee would have taken the high road, been forgiving and posited Hillary's comments were being misinterpreted, etc.

The idea that this could be construed in any other way than what it was intended is pure BS and the Obama campaign knows it.  In my opinion it is just payback for the 'Republican ideas' episode.

I am as of this moment not voting for Obama under any circumstances. Sorry if Hillary wanted that VP slot,which I have been encouraging her to seek and take.  She should not serve with Obama in any capacity.

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I think this reading into her comments is a very over the top!

Of course, the simple answer is that she's leading in the people's votes and in the electoral votes.  It would be stupid to quit when she is ahead.

But, some people aren't satisfied with that, therefore she has to elaborate. So, she stated a couple more facts - Bill Clinton wasn't nominated until June, and Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June while campaigning. Simply, more reason she shouldn't quit.